Yesterday’s coverage of a lecture given by former Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis was entirely one-sided, recounting only her talking points. In abandoning all pretense of balance and in overlooking any tough questions asked of her following her talk, the ‘Prince’ failed to recognize that the content of Davis’s talk is controversial and subject to legitimate debate.
Wendy Davis spent most of her lecture expounding the idea that expanding women’s reproductive choices, particularly abortion, is essential to guaranteeing women’s equality. Moreover, she alleged that many conservatives use these issues as mere political ploys while ignoring those who are affected. As a woman and president of Princeton Pro-Life, I strongly object to Davis’s claims. Her remarks grossly mischaracterize the pro-life movement in an astonishingly intolerant manner. I, and many Princetonians like me, oppose abortion because we sincerely believe that life begins at conception and that all human life has inherent dignity.
Sadly, yesterday’s account of the lecture neglected to mention the controversial nature of the event. The ‘Prince’ neither mentioned my question challenging her problematic conception of gender equality nor the former state senator’s woefully inadequate response. As a result, the ‘Prince’ failed to recognize the diversity of thought among students, and women specifically, on campus. Presenting such differing viewpoints in a balanced manner is the duty of a respectable newspaper. I urge the ‘Prince’ to bear this in mind going forward as it continues to inform the Princeton community.
Respectfully,
Elly Brown '18
President of Princeton Pro-Life
Editor's Note: The Daily Princetonian's coverage of public lectures is designed to report the substance of the speaker's remarks. Though many speakers on campus discuss potentially controversial policy issues, it has been the practice of the ‘Prince’ to report on the speaker’s comments without necessarily invoking all sides of the debate. While questions or answers during the Q&A portion of a public lecture are sometimes quoted, the purpose of the coverage is primarily to report what the speaker said during the event.
Read More
An open letter to President Eisgruber and VP Calhoun concerning minoritized student safety
Patrick Jaojoco, Brandi Bushman, and Humza Gondal"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
On the occupation of Clio Hall and the treatment of Graduate School staff
Cole M. Crittenden“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
Rishi Khanna“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
